For scientific papers on AGW, record happenings in the Arctic and the Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic icesheets. Also weatherstorms and higher than average rainfalls and other extreme weather events.

I must say that the table (reply 119) provided here doesn’t really show much of a trend. This is because it’s a non-localised metric but this is the very reason the system is called complex: because many indicators can and should be used to look at it... when/if this does start to show a declining trend then the world is definitely fucked!

Straight lines are what you don’t want to see!!

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

There is a trend, you are right, excepting for ‘12, ‘13, ‘14, ‘15 ....

... basically it is my opinion once you see global sea ice trend, ...and that implies the tendency to trend ever stronger otherwise it’s simply not a trend in the first place, you’ve got actual trouble so I am kind of looking for that glimmer of non-trend to confirm by suspicion that actual global sea ice decline means the world is on fire which it isn’t, atleast not in my world!

Nah, there is a trend. After the first 3-4 years there are only two years with high 17K figures.

2012 was a record melt year in the Arctic and on Greenland. Ice recovered a bit after that.

If you graphed the years and ice extent (to one significant figure) then drew a straight line of best fit you would see it. Natural phenomenon are MUCH more variable than a chemist or physicist sees in his lab. That is why statistics were invented.

Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!

HBS Guy wrote:Nah, there is a trend. After the first 3-4 years there are only two years with high 17K figures.

2012 was a record melt year in the Arctic and on Greenland. Ice recovered a bit after that.

If you graphed the years and ice extent (to one significant figure) then drew a straight line of best fit you would see it. Natural phenomenon are MUCH more variable than a chemist or physicist sees in his lab. That is why statistics were invented.

Ok,

Fair enough there is a trend.

I started this thread to court controversy because it is an important discussion!

HBS Guy wrote:Use whatever language you like DRAH, just don’t call people pedos!

Yeah, Booby and his idol Dubyne KNOW that there is less and less sea ice extent and less and less thick, multiyear ice—look up “Arctic Mission.”

Multi year sea ice is certainly the biggest concern!

Now, THAT is a trend.

Trump has many arctic sea ice minimas to deal with before he has a crack at a second term and I think he will be forced to regulate if he wants to win because of the trending state of multi year sea ice...

It’s just a snapshot. But day after day, week after week, month after month, the story has been much the same throughout Fall and Winter of 2017-2018.

And as during last year’s ridiculously warm Arctic winter, the sea ice has taken a considerable pounding. Yesterday dropping to a new record low extent of 13.774 million square kilometers. Beating out the previous record low for the day set just last year. And dipping more than 1.8 million square kilometers below the 1979-1990 average. A period that already featured greatly reduced Arctic sea ice cover when compared to extents seen in the early 20th Century.